The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't feel sad for Andrew yes it was a long time ago but that doesn't mean we can just say forget about it. Once again remember some of Epstein girls were 13 and 14 so yes he is a pedophile and Andrew continued a friendship with him and maybe helped him get a lighter sentence. That should never of happened and should be reopened



Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I'm catching up, so apologies.



Has he actually hired this lawyer or is it alleged by a certain newspaper? Is there actually any proof?



UK media is not to be trusted as a stand alone source.


There is no proof he has hired said lawyer, the information came from the MailOnline who on Sunday said Andrew was going to speak about this incident in Davos. Something that has since been denied.
 
I see the thing like LumutQ: Too many people take allegations as facts and speculate wildly.

To be clear: This women was 17 by her own claims - and over the age of consent, when (if) sex with Andrew happend. So it is merely a question of morals and not criminal.

She claims to have been paid for sex e.g. a prostitute - but how was Andrew to know? Because by her own claim it wasn't Andrew who paid her but Epstein.

There is no case against Andrew, and I guess, there will never be one, because legal foundation is just not there.
 
:previous: I have to agree. Time was we left the speculation to the rags, now we see it here, right down to gutter level. It beggars belief.
 
She claims to have been paid for sex e.g. a prostitute - but how was Andrew to know? Because by her own claim it wasn't Andrew who paid her but Epstein.

There is no case against Andrew, and I guess, there will never be one, because legal foundation is just not there.

This is where it gets murky. Andrew knew Epstein and had known him for some time. He knew his proclivities. Ought he have made enquiries? Would a reasonable man in his position have reasonably suspected that there was something amiss? Or that there might have been something amiss? Was it reasonable to assume that everything was above board, and that these very young women were there because they made the fully informed and uncoerced choice to be there? I don't know the law in this area and particularly not in the relevant countries, but my training tells me that there are issues here that have not yet been fully explored but are likely to be.

And though there might not be a case against Andrew yet, if the US Attorney-General or whatever the correct terminology is, is required to produce all the submissions and other paperwork that the Jane Does are asking to be produced, and if the Jane Does are successful and the plea bargains are set aside, all hell could break loose.
 
I see the thing like LumutQ: Too many people take allegations as facts and speculate wildly.

To be clear: This women was 17 by her own claims - and over the age of consent, when (if) sex with Andrew happend. So it is merely a question of morals and not criminal.

She claims to have been paid for sex e.g. a prostitute - but how was Andrew to know? Because by her own claim it wasn't Andrew who paid her but Epstein.

There is no case against Andrew, and I guess, there will never be one, because legal foundation is just not there.


THANK YOU :D the capital letters are for my enthusiasm :)
 
The legal age of adulthood here in the US is 18. So if anything happened between them which there is no way to prove it unless it's on film somewhere God forbid. So she would have been underage when this allegedly took place. It's similar to what is going on with Bill Cosby here in the US a lot of allegations but unless I missed something no proof. When scandals like this happens people are tried and convicted in the court of public opinion not the court of law.
 
Last edited:
Richard Palmer, the royal reporter for the Daily Express made the comment if Andrew was a government figure, a MP for example he would have been put out to pasture years ago. Too much baggage over the years.

Fair or not, when scandal of this level is involved people fall on their swords or they are pushed.

I think if this 'scandal' continues with any steam or legs, someone at BP needs to sit Andrew down and tell him to do the right thing.

And I'm not in anyway stating he is guilty of anything other than maybe bad judgement but it still makes for terrible headlines and it drags the Firm down
 
Last edited:
Age of majority should not be confused with the age of sexual consent, marriageable age, school leaving age, drinking age, driving age, voting age, smoking age, etc., which all may be independent of, and sometimes set at a different age from, the age of majority.


If Andrew has engaged counsel, a head-start can be achieved in the interpretation of the paperwork he has handed over. I think this is a smart move, if he has engaged representation.
 
RUDOLPH #997 = Very well stated. IMO, the more I read in proper media outlets, Andrew "MIGHT" have had sex with a young person [maybe even many or more than once] which is done thousands of times by both married and single older men in this day-and-age. Everyone seems to have a different slant on morals now. The only person I could personally even take extreme action against would be my own late husband, if in this situation. But, that being said, Public Opinion is a huge item for anyone in public life. I usually get things wrong anyway. I watched the OJ trial daily and thought he was guilty of killing his wife--wrong, he was found innocent. I again watched the Casey Anthony case and was certain she killed her beautiful child--wrong, she was also found not guilty. So I guess I am the wrong person to make an intelligent opinion about Andy, even though I do not personally believe he is lily white in all his doings. I just feel that he and Fergie both feel entitled to live the lifestyle they demand no matter when or how they have to achieve it. The sex isn't the big deal for Andrew, the court paper, if any, will bring him down and Charles will have to step in fast and make a fast judgment against it all for his mother. Shame. The British Royals do not deserve these awful headlines especially now with Fergie opening her un-popular mouth. God Bless the beautiful Queen through all this scandal.
 
Richard Palmer, the royal reporter for the Daily Express made the comment if Andrew was a government figure, a MP for example he would have been put out to pasture years ago. Too much baggage over the years.

Fair or not, when scandal of this level is involved people fall on their swords or they are pushed.

I think if this 'scandal' continues with any steam or legs, someone at BP needs to sit Andrew down and tell him to do the right thing.

But what should Andrew do? Members of the royal family don't just 'disappear' - unless they are the Duke of Windsor.

He can't just retire from public life into a private job, like an MP who steps down, unless he...drops his HRH and becomes a private citizen, I guess.

Not that I don't think there should be consequences for Andrew, but what should they be? What can he really do (besides give up all international trade visits...which, to a large extent, he already did in 2011)?
 
If he speaks at Davos about all this, we will know he has NOT retained counsel. Counsel's first advice will be to never utter a word about this.
 
I don't think he will say anything directly about it. More along the line of his work , it's importance, how much he enjoys it and will continue to do it


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
But what should Andrew do? Members of the royal family don't just 'disappear' - unless they are the Duke of Windsor.

He can't just retire from public life into a private job, like an MP who steps down, unless he...drops his HRH and becomes a private citizen, I guess.

Not that I don't think there should be consequences for Andrew, but what should they be? What can he really do (besides give up all international trade visits...which, to a large extent, he already did in 2011)?

I don't now what the answer is. Something needs to be done because although he resigned his trade position we are back to headlines like this

Air Miles Andy flies again: Duke of York visited 15 countries and clocked up 67,000 miles in 2014 - Telegraph

Perception begins to become reality in the court of public opinion and although I know its not fair the Epstein affair will haunt him and in turn the BRF for a long time to come, regardless of whether Andrew is innocent of the allegations.

Like you say, he can't be fired because he's unaccountable to anyone but the Queen and she seems to have turned a blind eye to his shenanigans over the years.

His appearance in Davos doesn't help either. Although not officially representing the British Government, many people won't make the distinction and think its business as usual for Randy Andy.

Charles must be livid because its yet another distraction from the transition that is taking place slowly but surely.
 
Last edited:
That's a lot of travel with golf trips in between. Someone must have taken their eye off the ball for it to happen again.
Really starting to wonder what's going on and is it all just fun and games for the royals now. I'm finding it hard to defend them to my republic friends


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I am amazed at the responses on this thread. Some have him guilty of debaunching an innocent and think banishing him from public life, or is it the UK, is the answer.

Others say, hang on a minute, has he broken the law? Has he been charged with a criminal offense? No? Then what the hell is with the flog him and bury him brigade. Due process? Guilty by association more like because the niceties of the law don't apply to Andrew because of who he is.

Question for our US members: Is Alan Dershowitz getting this sort of publicity and heat?
 
I wonder if there is anyone who tallys up the air miles accumulated by business/government executives who do the sort of work that Andrew does. The air miles tag, after all, came about for it's use in the tabloids .... as did waity Katie.

Regarding the question of Alan Dershowitz ... to my knowledge he is not getting the same kind of publicity, however I could be wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am amazed at the responses on this thread. Some have him guilty of debaunching an innocent and think banishing him from public life, or is it the UK, is the answer.

Others say, hang on a minute, has he broken the law? Has he been charged with a criminal offense? No? Then what the hell is with the flog him and bury him brigade. Due process? Guilty by association more like because the niceties of the law don't apply to Andrew because of who he is.

Question for our US members: Is Alan Dershowitz getting this sort of publicity and heat?

No, not at all, but he fills different shoes altogether.
 
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy

Could someone tell me what " sort of work " Andrew does now. I thought all the overseas business etc was taken off him. Sorry if everyone else understands but I'm confused as I thought he was doing work for youth employment as in trades etc in UK


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Last edited:
I am amazed at the responses on this thread. Some have him guilty of debaunching an innocent and think banishing him from public life, or is it the UK, is the answer.

Others say, hang on a minute, has he broken the law? Has he been charged with a criminal offense? No? Then what the hell is with the flog him and bury him brigade. Due process? Guilty by association more like because the niceties of the law don't apply to Andrew because of who he is.

Question for our US members: Is Alan Dershowitz getting this sort of publicity and heat?

No. Not many people care about him and he is not representing anything, nor born to the position he fills. Plus, have you noticed he has kept himself low key.
 
But what should Andrew do? Members of the royal family don't just 'disappear' - unless they are the Duke of Windsor.

He can't just retire from public life into a private job, like an MP who steps down, unless he...drops his HRH and becomes a private citizen, I guess.

Sure he can.
He wouldn't have to give up his title, but he could easily retire into the country, live quietly, and stop representing the RF. He could occupy himself with golf and field sports, stop the travel, stop the partying with questionable characters, stop scrounging for money.

Eventually people would just forget about him (provided he doesn't get involved in any more scandals).
 
There are extraordinarily hard working senior members of the royal family that you can point to when republicans pounce, royal rob. Charles, Anne, Sophie Wessex, for instance, and look at how the Queen and Prince Philip soldier on at their ages.

With regard to Andrew, in a way it wouldn't really matter if the court action in the US stopped tomorrow. Over the years there has been just too much baggage and as it stands now his reputation is in tatters. It's gone past the point of being redeemable.This latest mess just tops it off.

Nobody at BP will do anything about him but in my opinion the greatest favour the grey men there could do for the Royal family's own reputation would be to suggest to the Queen that Andrew no longer represents her at any functions in the future..

If this scandal continues on and it looks as if it will, voices will grow louder for HM to do something about her son. It's already starting on the Internet blogs. I hear it among my own English friends.

He must and should retire into private life. I don't care what he does with his time after that. He can play golf all day if he wants.
 
Could someone tell me what " sort of work " Andrew does now. I thought all the overseas business etc was taken off him. Sorry if everyone else understands but I'm confused as I thought he was doing work for youth employment as in trades etc in UK


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

He represents The Queen and the Government both in the UK and overseas to promote Britain and British interests. Due to his contacts in the Middle East and Asia he is still being used, where it is felt he can be of assistance to Britain in these areas.

He also undertakes a number of engagements related to his charities e.g. Outward Bound, and his military positions.

He may have visited 15 countries last year but that was in 4 official overseas trips so he would visit multiple countries in one trip.

Charles went on 5 overseas trips last year and visited numerous countries, as did Edward and Harry.

The media have always had to have a 'bad' royal in each generation and Andrew is the 'bad' one in his.

In 20 - 30 years time it will be Harry - the hanger on younger brother who is no longer needed as William's children will be reaching working age.

People criticised Andrew for mixing golf with his official visits but he did that, and still does that, because he was the Captain of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club at St Andrews - the home of golf. As a Past Captain he is also expected to attend some of the major golf tournaments around the world.

No one criticised Harry for arranging his official visit to Brazil last year to coincide with the World Cup and two of his official activities were to watch football games. Rather than pay his own way to those games Harry arranged to make them 'official duties' and he isn't even the President of the FA (that is William).
 
One thing that has occurred to me as far as Andy and golf is that perhaps it is something set up by the people he's visiting and doing business with. We've seen it numerous times when William has gone on tours somewhere that somewhere in the itinerary there would be something with search and rescue being the focus. With Kate and George, it was things that would interest a new mother and there was a boat load (including the boat) of gifts geared to a wee one. Is it not possible to think that perhaps knowing Andrew's love for the game of golf that people would go out of their way to set up a golf package for him? We can't just assume that all the golf outings are of Andrew's own private planning.

It would be along the lines of sending me on these trips and everyone knowing just how much I loved my brown cows. They would go out of their way to make sure they had their finest, creamiest milk and the best root beer to be had for them.
 
If these allegations are proven true it would take Andrew a bit beyond the "bad royal of the generation."

I am trying to reserve judgment until we see some of those docs the U.S. attorney supposedly has. We are still at the pleading stage of this fight.
 
If he speaks at Davos about all this, we will know he has NOT retained counsel. Counsel's first advice will be to never utter a word about this.
It's only the tabloids who are saying he will address the scandal. When he doesn't, then they can criticize him for ducking the issue and NOT addressing it :whistling:
 
Andrew should address the scandal. He should do it at home and be truthful.
 
Andrew should address the scandal. He should do it at home and be truthful.

I think this could be very dangerous for Andrew. What's he going to say? If it's true, he's hardly going to admit it. I think any statement he makes would just be a blanket denial of any impropriety, and I think BP has already said something to that effect.

At this stage no specific allegations have been made against him. By this I mean dates, times, acts alleged to have been performed, conversations alleged to have taken place, etc. The plaintiffs, or prosecutors, as the case may be, need to state their claims, and until they do so he should keep his mouth shut.
 
I think this could be very dangerous for Andrew. What's he going to say? If it's true, he's hardly going to admit it. I think any statement he makes would just be a blanket denial of any impropriety, and I think BP has already said something to that effect.

At this stage no specific allegations have been made against him. By this I mean dates, times, acts alleged to have been performed, conversations alleged to have taken place, etc. The plaintiffs, or prosecutors, as the case may be, need to state their claims, and until they do so he should keep his mouth shut.


I thought that places and times and some details had been alleged


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom